JFJ Forums

That is a concession of the entire argument presented by Protestants. That Jesus  is the Chief Shepherd and not Peter. The RCC claims that the Apostle Peter and now we have you conceding that it is Jesus Christ who is the Chief Shepherd.  Peter was just one of many Shepherds within the Christian church since the days of Pentecost and still on going at the present time with Jesus being the Chief Shepherd. Which is confirmed for us right in Acts 20:17;28 and 1 Pet. 5:1-4 as I said before. All of this shows that Peter was not the visible head of the Church on the earth. Peter and all the Apostles all had equal authority and power and had no authority of which the others did not likewise have.

Mine is found in the New Testament. I hold to two orders of Ministry. 1  ) Elder, Bishop and Pastor which refers to the same person in office. See 2 Tim 3; Acts 20 and Titus 1.  2 ) Deacons see Titus 1. There is no Roman Catholic form of Church government at all. There is no office of the priesthood or other RCC inventions on church government.  I shall provide a refutation of the RCC view by posting a positive correct teaching on the  1st order of ministery. And show elder, bishop and pastor are the same office and person in ministry and not distinct orders as held by the RCC.

Titus 1:5 -9 - Elder ( Gk. presbuterous ) and overseer ( Gk. episkopos )  designate the same office ( cp. v.7; Ac. 20:17;cp. v.28 ) , the former referring to the man, the later to a function of the office. The eldership in the apostolic churches were usually pluaral;there is no instance of only one elder in a local church.The functions of the elder are:to rule ( 1 Ti. 3:4-5;5:17 ) ; to teach ( 1 Ti. 5:17 ) ; to guard the body of revealed truth from perversion and error ( Titus 1:9 ) ; and to oversee the church as a shepherd his flock ( Jn. 21:16;Ac.20:28;Heb. 13:17; 1 Pe. 5:2 ) . Elders are made or set in the churches by the Holy Spirit ( Ac. 20:28 ) , but great stress is laid in the N.T. upon their due appointment ( Ac. 14:23; Titus 1:5 ) . In Titus and 1 Timothy the qualifications of an elder become part of the Scriptures for guidance of the churches themselves in such appointments ( 1 Ti. 3:3-7 ) . ( NEW SCOFIELD STUDY BIBLE, pg. 1533, NIV )

Local Churches sent over representatives to the Jeruselem Council. It was in Acts 15 where we see it. And at it they all worked together to deal with the specific issue involved there. What we find missing in Acts 15 is the specific RCC form of Church government totally absent there. What can be said is over a period of time the Church departed from the Biblical form of Church government .

I have no great knowledge on this subject, but here it goes.

Some say Peter along with Paul preached to the Roman, and thus Peter set the Church there. Even if it never happened and he, Peter, was not pratically, phisically the first Bishop of Rome/Pope, the reason why we see it has the first "Pope" is because of this passage of the Bible: "And I tell you: you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it". Matt. 16:18-19 (there are variations of this last part). Then He says: "I shall give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven; what you connect on Earth shall be connected on Heaven and what you disconnect on Earth shall it be disconnected on Heaven" Matt. 16:19-20

I would have hoped that you read through the pages of this tread. I provided refutations of the specific claims of Roman Catholicism and it's usual miscitations of the early church fathers on the specific issue of the papacy.




I hold it was founded first by the Apostle Paul and Peter who went there before he died in Rome. Peter was for many years was Bishop of Antioch. He was not Bishop of Rome for the 25 years that the RCC claims for this at all. And was not the first bishop of Rome. Paul and Peter appointed Linus as the first bishop of Rome. It is to be noted that episcopacy was not the form of church government in the Church of Rome until after 140ad. That alone refutes the claims of the papacy.




That is without historical foundation and proper biblical exegesis of it. The RCC claim for it's position was not the " unanimous consent " of the early church fathers though Vatican I in 1870ad tried to claim this. The most common interpretation of the " Rock " of Matt. 16 was the person of Peter's confession of faith of Jesus Christ as Messiah and Son of God. Peter there represented the Apostles and all Christians who have faith in Christ. The church was built on his confession of faith. The word " church " used there refers to the universal invisible church which consist of all who have faith in Christ and baptized into Christ body by the Holy Spirit. Peter did not have the power of binding and loosing alone and it was not given it to him at that time. I will give you the keys is future tense. It was given to Peter and all the other Apostles together in Matt. 18:18. And is limited to the preaching of the Gospel. There is nothing in the passage of the church of Rome there at all. Peter was an Apostle by gift and an elder by office. Peter had equal authority with all the other Apostles. He had no authority that the others did not likewise have. They together were the spiritual foundation of the church with Jesus as the chief corner stone. The position I stated was the majority position of the early church fathers and yet was ignored by Vatican I. And shows once again there is no such thing as the unanimous consent of the church fathers for it's claimed distinctive teachings.